emacs-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Changes 2009-07-15/16 in branch?


From: YAMAMOTO Mitsuharu
Subject: Re: Changes 2009-07-15/16 in branch?
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 10:56:08 +0900
User-agent: Wanderlust/2.14.0 (Africa) SEMI/1.14.6 (Maruoka) FLIM/1.14.8 (Shij┼Ź) APEL/10.6 Emacs/22.3 (sparc-sun-solaris2.8) MULE/5.0 (SAKAKI)

>>>>> On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 10:01:08 -0400, Chong Yidong <address@hidden> said:

> YAMAMOTO Mitsuharu <address@hidden> writes:
>> Maintainers, shouldn't you explain why you released Emacs 23.1
>> without removing the Cocoa-only background transparent feature?
>> 
>> I've explained reasons why it should be removed in so many aspects.
>> But I've never heard of logical reasons from you.

> As I've explained before, it was too late to make drastic internals
> changes.  I agreed to the removal of the user commands for setting
> the alpha channel---a "removal", I might add, that actually
> consisted of not reverting your unannounced, unagreed-upon changes
> to a release branch in heavy freeze---but your other changes to the
> ns*.m internals were too risky for the marginal "benefit" provided
> (that "benefit" being to make it slightly harder for users to set
> the alpha in an incompatible way).

What do you mean by "slightly harder"?  Does it mean the users can
specify alpha-component and use background transparent feature in some
harder way even if you don't revert the part of my change?  It was
intended for users to make it completely impossible to specify
alpha-component.

Also, the above reason ("too late") does not explain why you reverted
the change also in the trunk.  If you are against some of the reasons
I've given, please explain.

> Now, I'm confident that someone of your intelligence will be able to
> find some persnickety arguments against this decision.  But I've
> little inclination to engage in more such debate, so you'll
> unfortunately have to live with it.

I don't think the argument on the GNU policy infringement
"persnickety".  Moreover, this should have been addressed before the
release whether or not I've made some change about it.

                                     YAMAMOTO Mitsuharu
                                address@hidden




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]